Michael Shanks MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 10 Feb 2025 · Biomass Generation · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, although I would gently point out that the shadow Minister and I agree on a lot more than he likes to pretend—or I like to pretend, perhaps. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we are aware of the importance of the jobs at this particular power station and in the supply chain, and we will be working with Drax on what that looks like. We are of course changing the role that Drax will use the power station in Selby for, and I will ensure that I have those conversations about the supply chain. I would be happy to speak to him more about that in due course.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Biomass Generation · Hansard source

  More

  At the risk of getting into trouble with those responsible for tax matters, I simply say that this is a windfall mechanism that does exactly the same thing, and it does exactly what the Conservatives failed to do in 14 years, which is to ensure that there is a good deal and good value for money for the British public, delivering on energy security and, crucially, getting us to a point where our clean power plan for 2030 delivers energy security, climate leadership and jobs right across the country. It is the ambition of doing something different in this country and doing it fast, and we are committed to delivering it.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Biomass Generation · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. The sustainability criteria are important, but he is right that making sure they are met is important too. This is a contract for difference agreement and we will work with Ofgem to work out exactly what its role is as the regulator, but to go above what has been in place before, we have announced that an independent adviser will work with my Department, the Low Carbon Contracts Company and Ofgem to make sure that the latest science and the latest awareness on different elements of biomass are key in our decision making, and that there is a real audit trail in place. The other really important thing is that there is now no room whatsoever for Drax not to comply with the sustainability criteria. Its compliance must be 100%, and there will not be a penny of subsidy for anything that is not sustainable. That is important, and the audit trail will be part of that work.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Biomass Generation · Hansard source

  More

  I am tempted to say that we will have to ask the Conservatives that question, but they are under new management, so they do not know why the previous Government that they were all Ministers in made the decisions that they did. The truth is that for far too long—under, I think, eight different Conservative Energy Ministers—they signed off deal after deal with Drax with uncapped profits and nowhere near the sustainability criteria that they should have had, letting Drax do whatever it wanted with that power station. We have put a stop to that. Let us be really clear: we have halved the subsidy, taking £6 off every single bill in this country every single year, we have increased sustainability to 100%, and we are delivering the energy security this country needs, but we should not have been in the position on coming into office where there were nowhere near enough long-term plans for the future of our energy system.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Biomass Generation · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I reiterate that we wish we were not in the position we were in when we came into government, whereby this was the only option that would deliver security of supply out to the early 2030s. We have sought to get the best possible deal for sustainability and for bill payers, but I agree that we need to be building what comes next. Last year we announced that, for the first time in 40 years, the Government would be funding long-duration energy storage, and I have held a number of meetings with developers on pumped hydro and also on new, modern forms of long-duration energy storage. There are some really interesting, innovative ideas out there. Ofgem is currently putting in place the technical specifications for the cap and floor scheme, and we want to get that rolling as soon as possible. From all my meetings with developers in Scotland, I know that there is huge potential around pumped hydro in particular. They are waiting for certainty from the Government in order to move forward, and we are determined to give them that.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Biomass Generation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. Her tone means that I will resist the urge to say that, although I made fun of the shadow Minister for the eight announcements, it was of course the current Liberal Democrat leader who agreed the first support deal for Drax. But we will move past that on to her important questions about security of supply. The place we want to get to by the end of this period is one where we are not forced into making a decision like this again. It is really important to say that. We have a strong deal that protects bill payers, improves sustainability and delivers energy security, but we want to have options. The truth, as the hon. Lady rightly points out, is that we came into government without those options because of the decisions made by the Conservative party. That is a really important point. As for the point about excess profits, there was previously no mechanism to claw them back. We made that a key part of the negotiation and we managed to get it into the deal. Even if our estimates are wrong—and the estimates, of course, mean that the profit will be below the level expected of the regulated companies by Ofgem—we can claw back the additional profit from Drax. That is important to the system. Both the hon. Lady and the shadow Minister raised the question of KPMG’s reports. I know that my Department has seen them and engaged with them, and I know that Ofgem is still engaged in the audit process. I will take those questions away and see what can be done about sharing those reports.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Biomass Generation · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right that this is a good deal, in the short term, to ensure security of supply into the early-2030s, which was key to NESO’s advice on the basis of security of supply. In the process, however, we have sought to halve the subsidy that Drax was given by the previous Government and deliver on the sustainability criteria, taking that from 70% to 100%. This is a good deal for the people of this country. My hon. Friend also touched on the important work we need to do in the broader energy space to deliver energy security. That is why clean power 2030—our sprint to deliver decarbonised power—is so important, delivering good jobs in supply chains across the country.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Off-grid Communities: Energy Prices · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is right that, particularly in rural areas, certain house types are often much more difficult to heat due to much older building materials and a lack of insulation. The Minister for Consumers, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), is working to make sure our warm homes plan can reach all communities and all types of households, and I encourage the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) to feed in any ideas for how we can do that for these rural and off-grid households.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Off-grid Communities: Energy Prices · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful point. Where we can co-ordinate information and data across Government to identify people who need more support, we will do so. My Department is currently working with the Department for Work and Pensions to release as much of that information as possible, and we hope that we will be able to make progress in due course.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Off-grid Communities: Energy Prices · Hansard source

  More

  Our commitment to make Britain a clean energy superpower is the only way to protect bill payers permanently. The Government are determined to support all households with their energy costs, including those that are off grid, and eligible low-income households are being supported with the warm home discount. I urge households off the gas grid to contact their electricity supplier, if they have one, to see what support they can receive.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Off-grid Communities: Energy Prices · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is, of course, right to say that, even if oil and gas are extracted from the continental shelf, they are sold on the international markets. The companies that extract the oil and gas are in the business of trying to make as much profit as possible and will sell to the highest bidder, so it does not protect prices for consumers in this country. We were clear in our manifesto that we will not issue licences for new exploration and new fields, but that we will continue to support those licences that have already been issued. Our future does not lie in more oil and gas; it lies in clean power, which is why we are moving at pace to deliver that.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Great British Energy: Regional Offices · Hansard source

  More

  First, let us be absolutely clear that Great British Energy will invest in clean power projects right across the country, including in the shadow Minister’s constituency. Secondly, he has an absolute cheek to come to this Chamber and talk about jobs in oil and gas, when more than 70,000 jobs were lost in North sea industries over the past decade—the shadow Minister was in the Energy Department for at least a chunk of that time. The truth is that a transition is under way in the North sea. Conservative Members were quite happy to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that it was not happening as thousands of people lost their jobs. This Government are determined to build what comes next; the shadow Minister stands opposed to that, and he will have to explain to his constituents and the people of Scotland why he does not support that investment.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Great British Energy: Regional Offices · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister must be the only Member of Parliament representing Aberdeenshire who is against investment in Aberdeenshire. He will have to explain to his constituents and businesses right across his community why he stands up and opposes investment in his constituency. Of course, in doing so, he misunderstands the role that Great British Energy will play; the key point of it is that it will invest £8.3 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament in clean power projects right across the country, helping to unlock private sector investment and create supply chains in this country. The shadow Minister has now turned his face against all of those jobs that will be created in Aberdeen, which is a question he will have to answer for his constituents.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Great British Energy: Regional Offices · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman strongly makes the case for the importance of a publicly owned energy champion investing in parts of the energy system that are not currently getting that investment; I appreciate his recognition of that. What the interim chair of Great British Energy said very clearly—of course, it has not appointed a CEO yet—and what we have said consistently is that Great British Energy’s headquarters in Aberdeen will of course create jobs, but the majority of the jobs that will be created by that investment will come from the investment that Great British Energy makes in supply chains, in projects, and in developing the clean power that we need. Great British Energy will champion the industries that the right hon. Gentleman speaks about and deliver jobs in this country to reindustrialise communities, and Conservative Members will have to explain why they are against those jobs when they are created, including if they are created in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Great British Energy: Regional Offices · Hansard source

  More

  We announced that Great British Energy’s headquarters will be in Aberdeen, recognising the decades of experience in that city as the energy capital of Europe and our determination to invest in good, well-paid jobs in the city. With £8.3 billion-worth of investment behind Great British Energy, it will deliver economic value and jobs right across the supply chain across all parts of the country, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Great British Energy is the right idea for our time: public ownership, investment in supply chains and the reindustrialisation of our nation.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Great British Energy: Regional Offices · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right. Of course, the Great British Energy legislation is still going through Parliament at the moment; we hope that process will conclude soon, but in the meantime, hard work has been taking place to identify all the opportunities for Great British Energy to invest. Both Opposition parties—the SNP and the Conservatives—seem to oppose Great British Energy. Every single investment that it makes, every job that it creates, and every part of the supply chain that it incentivises will be delivered by Great British Energy against the SNP and the Conservatives, who have opposed it at every single stage. I ask them to rethink their position on what is a publicly owned champion to deliver for communities, create good, well-paid jobs, and deliver the clean power future that we need as a country.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I cannot speak on behalf of the House of Commons authorities, but under the building regulations of 2021, all new non-residential buildings and those undergoing major renovations must install charging infrastructure. In government, along with colleagues in the Department for Transport, I hosted roundtables yesterday, and I will host another today, on how we can unlock much more investment in charging infrastructure, because that is critical in supporting the transition to electric vehicles.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Although we are clearly on the sprint to deliver clean power by 2030, demand for electricity in this country is likely to double by 2050. Our reforms around connection to the grid are important —they will make sure that there is space for demand projects, such as data centres, to connect—but so is building the grid for the future, so that we have capacity in our network to deliver on our growth aspirations.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend. The local power plan is a key part of what Great British Energy will deliver. It will give communities the power to develop local power projects wherever possible, and to achieve the social and economic benefits of doing so. We are engaging with a number of stakeholders across the UK. Because of the devolution settlement, our main contact will be with the Scottish Government, who have their relationship with COSLA, but we are determined that local government across the UK will help drive this forward, and will have the capacity to support communities in doing so.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Energy-based Development: Mid Buckinghamshire · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Gentleman not just on this question, but on securing an Adjournment debate last night on exactly the same subject. As I stated last night, clean power projects in his constituency and across the country are vital to achieving our clean power mission, which will give us energy security and bring down bills for families. Of course, all proposals are assessed on their individual merit through the planning system, and where communities host infrastructure, the Government believe they should directly benefit from it.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Energy-based Development: Mid Buckinghamshire · Hansard source

  More

  I would be testing the patience of the Deputy Speaker if I were to go into more detail than I could in an Adjournment debate. The point I made clearly to the hon. Gentleman was that it is not a credible position for him to take that there should be absolutely no infrastructure built anywhere in his constituency. The reality is we need to build new infrastructure, not just energy infrastructure but right across the public sector. I have said clearly that the work we are taking forward on the strategic spatial energy plan and on the land use framework by colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is about trying to ensure that we manage the best use of land, but we will have to build new infrastructure, and communities will have to host it.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Draft Electricity Capacity (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Electricity Capacity (Amendment) Regulations 2025. Good morning, everyone. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Twigg, and to be back so soon in the year to talk about the capacity market. The draft instrument, which was laid before the House on 16 December 2024, seeks to make technical improvements and changes to the capacity market scheme—the Government’s main tool for ensuring security of electricity supply in Great Britain. To achieve clean power by 2030, electricity market reform is critical; to paraphrase our clean power action plan, we must reform the capacity market to provide clear and viable routes to decarbonisation for unabated gas, enable low-carbon flexible capacity and incentivise investment in existing capacity. Before outlining the provisions in the draft instrument, I will briefly provide some context. Great Britain’s capacity market was introduced in 2014 and is designed to ensure that sufficient electrical capacity is available to meet future predicted demand in order to maintain security of electricity supply. It is a well-established, technology-neutral scheme, in which existing and new build electricity capacity receives revenue based on capacity. Participants secure agreements through auctions, which require them to make capacity available at times of system stress. The capacity market is our main tool for ensuring security of electricity supply and provides all forms of capacity with the right incentives to be on the system to deliver when needed. It covers generation, storage, consumer-led flexibility—formerly known as demand-side response—and interconnection capacity. Through capacity market auctions, which are held annually one year and four years ahead of delivery, we secure the capacity needed to meet future peak demand under a range of scenarios, based on advice from the capacity market delivery body, the National Energy System Operator. Since its introduction in 2014, the capacity market has contributed to investment in just under 19 GW of new, flexible capacity, which is needed to replace older, less efficient plants as we transition to a net zero economy. To date, the capacity market has been successful in ensuring that Great Britain has adequate electricity capacity to meet demand, and it continues to be required in order to maintain security of supply and provide investor confidence. To ensure that the capacity market continues to function effectively, we regularly make adjustments to the implementing legislation, based on our day-to-day experiences of operating the scheme. On that note, let me turn to the details of the draft instrument. The draft instrument makes changes to eight regulations, to deliver technical improvements and changes that support the functioning of the capacity market and that have been identified and explored through consultation. This is about improving security of supply and, by accelerating investment in low-carbon technologies, increasing the role they play in the capacity market, thus supporting the Government’s 2030 clean power mission. Stakeholder feedback in the consultations identified a need to review the wider timescales associated with the settlement body’s penalty calculation activities, to ensure that timelines for settlement remain appropriate. The settlements body is the Electricity Settlements Company, which is a private company owned by the Secretary of State for the Department and established to oversee the settlement of payments to and from suppliers and capacity providers. The draft instrument amends the timelines for the settlement body’s determinations so that they are in line with those concerning penalty charges. As part of the requirements under the capacity market rules, some capacity market units must complete an extended performance test. This provides assurance that a capacity market unit from a storage-generating technology class can deliver capacity for the relevant duration. Effectively, extended performance tests are a sub-function of the satisfactory performance days requirement, which requires a capacity provider to demonstrate availability during a delivery year. The policy intent is that failure to meet extended performance tests should have the same consequence as failure to meet satisfactory performance days. The draft instrument ensures that the regime is consistent and that the two demonstrations of performance are treated in similar fashion when failed. To assist industry when pre-qualifying for the capacity market, the draft instrument further clarifies that a capacity market unit can be pre-qualified only where no contract for difference has been awarded, unless the contract for difference in question has expired or been terminated. The draft instrument further clarifies that a contract for difference means a contract for difference, or an investment contract entered into with the contract for difference counterparty, which has always been the policy intent. Finally, multi-year agreements provide greater revenue certainty and are likely to incentivise further low-carbon participation in the capacity market, which improves market liquidity and can lead to a greater diversity of technologies. A new nine-year capex threshold introduced by the draft instrument will ensure that new and refurbishing projects, with costs that fall between the existing thresholds, are not prevented from entering the capacity market. The draft instrument also enables participants to access a three-year agreement with a capex threshold of £0 kW, which is available to low-carbon new build and unproven demand-side response capacity. That will remove barriers for low-carbon, low-capex technologies to access longer agreements in the capacity market. To ensure that projects meet the definition of low-carbon capacity, the draft instrument introduces an emissions-related determination, which is a decision that the delivery body may take, as a further reviewable decision type. Let me turn now to the two consultations carried out by the Government—indeed, the previous Government—on the measures in the draft instrument. The instrument contains the second phase—phase 2—of the capacity market reforms, which were consulted on towards the end of 2023. These strengthen security of supply and accelerate investment in low-carbon technologies, and respondents were broadly supportive of the proposals. We have also made a number of technical amendments to the capacity market rules, which support the regulations and which were laid before the House—many Members here today were also present then—on 16 December 2024. In conclusion, the draft instrument introduces a number of technical provisions and changes to enable the continued efficient operation of the capacity market, so that it can continue to deliver on its objectives. These reforms will be critical on our pathway to achieving clean power by 2030. They will improve security of supply and, by accelerating investment in low-carbon technologies, increase the role that those play in the capacity market. We need clear routes for the decarbonisation of unabated gas and for the rapid acceleration of low-carbon, flexible capacity, and today we make another step towards that. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

• 3 Feb 2025 · Energy Development Proposals: Mid Buckinghamshire · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for securing this evening’s Adjournment debate. It has certainly not been lacking in hyperbole, and I look forward to responding to his specific points. Phrases such as “ticking time bomb”, “intent on destroying” and “thrown under the bus” suggest that we have taken a rational view on some of these decisions, although I will say that his comment about “two Teslas on the drive” suggests that our constituencies are quite different. Perhaps that will come forward in my remarks. I will pick up on the general thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s speech before turning to some of the specifics. He put forward a case that wrongly asserts that the only options are either a clean power system with renewables at its heart, or nuclear. I will come to his point about SMRs shortly, but I agree with him that there is a rational case for balance. We see nuclear as playing a critical role in our energy system in the future, but we also understand that building out a clean power system requires building renewables as well, because they are cheaper to operate and they deliver home-grown energy security in a way that gas plants do not. I will come back to the clean power action plan’s pathway in due course. The truth is that the hon. Gentleman spent the past 20 minutes outlining—in fact, he was quite open and honest about this—that he wants no infrastructure built in his constituency at all, yet I assume that his constituents still want to be able to rely on that infrastructure in their daily lives, including railways, hospitals, schools, energy and prisons. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues certainly want us to use prisons much more, but he does not want us to build prisons anywhere in his constituency. I am always very careful about the arguments on nimbyism, but at the heart of this issue is a real question about the fact that, at some point, we have to acknowledge that if we are to build infrastructure in this country, it has to be hosted somewhere. As someone who has one of Europe’s biggest onshore wind farms just outside my window in my constituency, I recognise that some constituencies will have to host important infrastructure on behalf of the country, and we all need to play a part in that. The reality is that delivering energy security requires us to build much more infrastructure, even if that includes small modular reactors. However, it is estimated that demand for electricity in this country will double by 2050, so the need of all our constituents, including the hon. Gentleman’s, for electricity and the jobs of the future will mean building much more infrastructure. The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the cumulative impact of infrastructure, which the Government have tried to wrestle with. That is partly why we launched the strategic spatial energy plan, so that we have a holistic approach to planning the energy system in the long term—the work should have been started a long time ago, but it was not undertaken by the previous Government. Alongside that, colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have launched the land use framework for the same reason: to try to plan the long-term future for land across our country. Given that food security is incredibly important, how do we protect land for food, and how do we identify pieces of land where we will build nationally important infrastructure? That is incredibly important. I repeat the point that we need to build infrastructure in this country. I am afraid that we have buried our head in the sand for far too long with respect to the infrastructure that is necessary, and the grid is struggling as a result. It is really important that we find a way to build that infrastructure in a holistic way that recognises the cumulative impact on communities. I want the hon. Gentleman to appreciate that I recognise that point. The hon. Gentleman noted that several projects are in the queue to connect to the grid—I think there is some 746 GW in the queue at the moment. I say gently that the reason it has got quite so out of control is that the previous Government did not manage the queue properly. There was not sufficient reform to manage it, so there are, as he says, several zombie projects that will never be developed but are taking up space in the connections queue. We have announced that we want significant reform to ensure that we are prioritising the projects that will actually be delivered, that are important for our energy security and, crucially, that will free up space for demand projects to be connected to the grid, which is important for our economic growth. More on that will be announced by NESO and Ofgem in due course. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I cannot give an answer to some of his specific points, because for legal reasons I have to be careful not to comment. However, Rosefield, the solar farm that he mentioned, is at the pre-application stage. The application for development consent is expected to be submitted in, I think, Q3 or Q4 of this year. At this point, it is developer-led. On a number of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised, I should say that the Government do not go out and identify these projects; developers identify the projects and then have a conversation with landowners.

• 3 Feb 2025 · Energy Development Proposals: Mid Buckinghamshire · Hansard source

  More

  I take the point, but although the Government absolutely do say, “We need to build a clean power system and therefore these projects are important,” what we do not say is, “Please build a solar wind farm in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.” These are developer-led projects; it is developers who identify the site. On the question of land ownership, the Government are not in the business of appropriating land for energy projects. The landowners have made a decision to sell their land for these projects, and that is a relationship that they have with the developer. It is a developer-led process. I know that the hon. Gentleman will continue to provide his views as the process continues. If the Rosefield application is accepted by the Planning Inspectorate, he and all his constituents will be able to engage with the planning process and register as interested parties. I reiterate that although the Government think that the planning system could be considerably more efficient, that is not about removing the robustness of the system so that communities no longer have a voice. We want communities to have a voice in the process, but we do not want them to be hanging around for years until decisions are made. We want the process to be more efficient, but communities should absolutely still have a voice. That is incredibly important. If the application comes to the Secretary of State, it is the duty of the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the pre-application consultation process has been carried out properly and adequately, in compliance with the Planning Act 2008. I know that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, given my Department’s quasi-judicial role in these applications, I cannot comment on anything more specific. The hon. Gentleman raised a number of points on batteries. Battery storage is incredibly important. To build the clean power system we need, we need a mix of both short-duration storage, which batteries provide, and long-duration storage, which we have not built in this country for an extremely long time. We have announced that we will build new long-duration storage, but we know there is an important role for batteries to play in short-duration storage so that we can store the clean power generated from wind and solar for when we need it. Of course, these projects will go through the planning process too. I am aware that East Claydon has been rejected by the local council. Of course, the applicant has a right to appeal. Again, I hope the hon. Gentleman understands that it would be wrong for me to comment on that particular case at this point. More generally, batteries are important both for maintaining storage and for reducing people’s bills by storing clean power, which we know is much cheaper in the long run. This minimises the investment in new generation, so if we get the mix of batteries right alongside other renewable technologies, we can help to minimise the need to build more infrastructure by storing power for when we need it. Batteries play an important role in balancing the electricity system. We outlined in the clean power action plan that between 23 GW and 27 GW of grid-scale batteries could be required to meet our decarbonisation goal by 2030. Not far from my constituency, one of Europe’s largest battery plants was announced recently, so this infrastructure is being shared across the UK. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on rooftop solar, which is a real opportunity. He rightly talks about warehouses, and we have a lot of multi-storey car parks, a lot of factories and a huge number of roofs in this country that I am happy to see covered in solar panels. It is not an either/or. There is certainly a role for rooftop solar, and we have announced that we want to see a rooftop revolution in solar. We have been working on bringing forward new building standards so that new build houses and commercial buildings have this as a key part of their design. There is also a critical role for ground-mounted solar, and we can meet our ambitions if we combine the two. The previous Government launched a solar taskforce to build out as much capacity in rooftop solar as possible, while also increasing the number of ground- mounted solar projects, and we have reconvened it to address not just the roll-out but how communities can benefit much better from hosting that infrastructure. We look forward to publishing that soon. The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members spoke about food security, and I make it clear that we take the view that food security is national security. It is critically important that we maintain food security across the country. Even if we built out all the solar that we currently expect to build, it would still take up less than 1% of the UK’s agricultural land, so we do not see food production and renewable energy as competing priorities. The two can co-exist. We all want to see a resilient and healthy food system. The hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) and for Mid Buckinghamshire both mentioned floodplains. Tackling climate change will be one of the most important ways to reduce the frequency of floods in such areas, which is crucial for maintaining arable farmland. We have to tackle the climate crisis if we are to maintain our food security, but we also want a balanced approach to land use. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the land use framework, which was announced last week. Unsurprisingly perhaps—far be it from me to say this— The Daily Telegraph misleadingly suggested that all of this farmland will be reused for renewable energy projects. That is not what the framework says. It says there are a number of uses for that land in relation to sustainability, such as where there are peatlands or particular environmental schemes that could help to lock in carbon, support biodiversity and wildlife, and help us to meet our climate obligations. It is not that the land will be used to build energy projects, as the article wrongly said. We are determined to bring communities with us. We want communities to have a voice and for communities that host infrastructure to benefit from it, so we will deliver a package of community benefits. On small modular reactors, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, we do not see energy as coming from one source or another. Nuclear will play a critical role in our energy mix far beyond 2030. It provides a critical amount of baseload, as well as skilled and well-paid jobs across the country. We want to see the SMR programme rolled out. We inherited much of that from the previous Government, but it had not really been progressed and none of it had been built during those 14 years. We now want to move at pace to deliver it. We see nuclear as important, alongside a balanced renewables system. I conclude by again thanking the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire for securing the debate. He and I will not agree on everything, but I hope we can find a way to ensure that we build a resilient energy system that balances the needs of different communities. On his point about the cumulative impact, I hope we can find a way through that, so that all communities benefit from infrastructure, but some will have to host it as well. Question put and agreed to.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Marine Renewables Industry · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman is determined to move me more quickly through my speech; I promise that I will come on to the taskforce. He is right that the more visibility we have of projects that might bid, the more aware we can be of what the sizes of ringfences and budgets for each pot in the CfD might look like. A range of factors makes that complex, such as whether projects are at final investment decision stage, or whether planning and consent are in place to allow them to bid into the auctions. There are many factors, but the visibility point is well made. On ringfencing, I hear what hon. Members have said and what has been passed to our Department over the past few months, but we will seek to balance the needs to deliver deployment and to ensure value for money when making these decisions. A number of hon. Members raised the issues of licensing and consenting, which are at the heart of our aims for reform of the planning system. We want to continue to have a robust planning system in which communities have a voice, but we also want to move much faster in making decisions, so that projects are not held up for years on end.